President Morales has announced that the people of Bolivia are to get the chance to vote in a referendum on the future constitution of the country.  The referendum is due to take place on 7th December.

The big question is: will this be the final decision on a number of policitcal issues?

One of the changes concerns the re-election of the Bolivian President.  If he wins the vote, President Morales could be re-elected a number of times more than is currently allowed.  I for one am wondering why such a step is necessary.  After all, other countries have rules to stop a President from ruling ad infinitum, and it probably does them good to have a change very few years.  Removing this rule in Bolivia would surely be a step backwards?

The other major issue is that of autonomy for some of Bolivia’s wealther regions – something that was partially voted on back in May of this year, although the result was not recognised a national level.

So will it be different this time around?  Will the people get to chose more autonomy for their regions, as long as they agree to an indefinite number of terms for the President?

If I was to write about smuggling something out of Bolivia, you would probably expect me to write about problems with illegal drugs leaving the country.  Of course, I could also write about more trivial things that, although not illegal in Bolivia, would be considered “smuggled” when the arrive in other countries – such as coca leaves.

But instead I want to link to an item that I read this evening about a different type of smuggling: timber!

Yes, it seems that away from the places usually associated with smuggling, such as ports and airports, smuggling of a different kind is taking place.  Trees in the Amazon rainforest are being cut down and taken down the Amazon river to Peru and Brazil.

I have to ask the question: why?

I thought, that those countries had enough of the Amazon rainforest for themselves.  In fact, most of the criticism that I read about cutting down the rainforest is aimed at Brazil.

Have the loggers there given up and are fetching their timber from across the border instead?  I wonder just how effective the border patrols will be…

It’s something that you never talk about as a visitor to Bolivia – well almost never: Bolivia’s access to the sea.  If you do, it stirs up hot feelings about at a topic that has been around for 125 years!

OK, here is the compact version of events:

- at the end of a war between Bolivia and Chile, Chile annexed land between Bolivia and the Pacific coast

- Bolivia was thus landlocked and it’s only access to a major port was by crossing the Andes and through Chile

A statue by Lake Titicaca commemorates the lost coastline

In fact, there is (or at least, was) a railway line that ran from La Paz down into Chile – the train running on it being an old S-Bahn carriage from Munich.

One of the easiest ways to think about the situation is to compare it with the connections between West Germany and West Berlin during the Cold War – they were there, but the West did not like being restricted by their neighbour and the East resented having to provide the access in the first place.

Chile allows Bolivia access to the sea, but on its terms.  Bolivia resents this, but does not really have much choice.

Take a look at the Bolivia coat of arms and you can count ten stars on it – one for each province in the country.  Except that Bolivia only has nine provinces – the tenth is the one that was annexed by Chile and remains on the coat of arms to show that Bolivia still makes a claim to this area.

So imagine my surprise this week when I read that Chile wants to give Bolivia better access to the port, such as being able to import goods without them being checked by Chilean customs.  I wonder how Bolivia will react?  More of a grateful “thank you” or will it be a case of “thanks, but we’ll like our land back and not just access to it”?

The answer to my last post is “yes”, there was as referendum in Santa Cruz last Sunday.

The results vary depending on which source you read, but it is safe to say that over 80% of those who took part voted for more autonomy in the region.

This overwhelming majority may not come as a surprise to many – there are strong feelings in the region about how the area is treated by the national government. It probably didn’t surprise many people either, that President Morales announced that he would not be recognising the result. In fact, he called the referendum “illegal”. His supporters allegedly burnt ballot papers in some areas and even destroyed one polling station.

At the end of the day, he may have to power to stop the result taking effect at national level, but – although the vote had been announced well in advance – doesn’t seem to have taken action to stop it being held.

Was he relying on his supporters in the region to create enough disruption so as to make polling impossible?

Or did he want to avoid a conflict, knowing he could wipe away the result with one speech later?

I would almost describe it as a “Bolivian solution” – let the people have their say, and then tell them afterwards “it’s good that you think that, but I’ll be ignoring it anyway”.

Other countries would have either banned (and blocked) the vote, by force if necessary. On the other hand, in other countries the fight for local independence has often taken more violent forms.

But perhaps some other countries could be a model for a future Bolivian political solution, and perhaps President Morales should take a look at those countries in order to take a leading role in finding a solution for Santa Cruz.

The Scottish and Welsh assemblies, for example, give those regions of the United Kingdom more independence in running their own affairs, whilst leaving decisions of national importance to the national Government in London. This solution may not be popular with everyone – especially those in Scotland who would prefer to see full independence – but it works for a large majority.

The German “federal” solution would be even more radical: give every area control over their own affairs, but keep national decisions on a national level, and make the areas agree on some of their decisions so that they are more or less uniform across the entire country – just with regional variations.

If President Morales was to go to Santa Cruz and say “let’s talk about it”, the question has to be – would they listen?  Would one of those solutions work?

On the other hand, does anyone except him to go there and say that now?